Information Regulator vacancy: shortlisting

Meeting report

The Chairperson announced that the briefing on the State Liability Amendment Bill had been postponed and would take place in September. He then listed criteria for candidates for the new information regulator, as described in Section 41 of the Protection of Personal Information Act (POPIA). They should:

- not be public servants,
- not be an unrehabilitated insolvent,
- be citizens of the Republic of South Africa,
- not be a member of Parliament,
- not have been declared mentally ill or unfit by a court of law, and
- be suitably qualified.

He recalled that the Committee had agreed to nominate no more than five candidates, as it was a part-time position, and to conduct the interviews on a single day.

Mr S Swart (ACDP) asked for confirmation that the requirement that the nominees should not be an office-bearer or employee of a political party included executive office-bearers of a political party.

The Chairperson confirmed that it did.

Mr G Hendricks (Al Jamah-Ah) said that his party had received a flood of enquiries about the Experian data breach, which had compromised the personal information of 24 million South Africans. He hoped that this breach would inform the selection of the Information Regulator, who needed to ensure that such breaches did not take place and take severe punitive action against companies or banks that failed to protect citizens’ personal information. Should this type of economic activity not perhaps be prohibited?

The Chairperson replied that these issues would be included in the interview questions, as it was an important matter. The responsible Portfolio Committees should also deal with the matter urgently, and perhaps summon the company responsible.

Mr Swart agreed that the issue was important. The Committee needed a report on the matter from the Information Regulator, as it was a clear breach of the POPIA.

The Chairperson explained that the Information Regulator consisted of a chairperson and four other members, of whom two were part-time. After the resignation of Prof Tana Pistorius, it now included two men and two women.

Adv G Breytenbach (DA) said it was important to appoint someone with experience in information and communication technology. She nominated Prof Justine Limpet-Law and Prof .Alison Gillwald.

Mr X Nqola (ANC) nominated Ms Alison Tilley and Ms Katlego Dolamo.

Mr Swart seconded the nominations of Prof Limpet-Law and Prof Gillwald.

Mr W Horn (DA) nominated Mr Prittish Dala.

Ms W Newhoudt-Druchen (ANC) seconded the nominations of Ms Tilley and Ms Dolamo, and asked what the qualifications of the outgoing member had been.

The Chairperson replied that Prof Tana Pistorius was a professor of law specialising in intellectual property law. He explained that the nominees would undergo the same screening process that nominees for the deputy public protector had undergone, giving the public two weeks to comment on the their applications.

Ms J Mofokeng (ANC) recalled that the Deputy Public Protector interviews had been public, which had given later interviewees the unfair advantage of having heard the questions in advance. Members should also ensure that they prepared a wide variety of questions for the candidates.

The Chairperson noted Ms Mofokeng’s concern. He observed that this problem would be mitigated slightly by the fact that the information regulator interviews would take place on a single day.

Mr Nqola said that this would still be a problem, even though the interviews would all be on the same day. He asked whether the interviews would take place in person or on the virtual platform. If the meetings took place in person, it would be easy to separate the candidates who were waiting to be interviewed to prevent them from hearing the questions.

Mr Swart observed that Parliament was preparing to return to normal activities with health protocols in place, and there would therefore be the possibility of having the interviews in person, with the interviewees in a separate room.

The Chairperson confirmed that the interviews would be conducted in person. The outcome of the screening and the interview date would be announced at a later meeting.

The meeting was adjourned.